Monday, July 20, 2009

ESPN Convenes NASCAR Media Drug Summit

It is an off-week for the Sprint Cup Series. There is no RaceDay show, no Victory Lane program and This Week in NASCAR has been replaced by a special on Roush Performance Engineering.

All of this leaves an opening for ESPN to once again host a reporters roundtable show on the Monday version of NASCAR Now. This program has worked well in the past by featuring print, Internet and radio journalists who are not normally seen on TV.

Now that the Jeremy Mayfield story has exploded once again across the national landscape, the timing for this Monday's NASCAR reporter roundtable could not be better. Just wait until you hear the starting line-up.

Stepping-in for Allen Bestwick as host will be Mike Massaro. Veteran fans will proudly step-up and relate stories of seeing Massaro literally chasing driver's personal vehicles down the NASCAR access roads after races for ESPN interviews.

When NASCAR and ESPN parted ways the last time, there were ruffled feathers and bruised egos all the way around. NASCAR used the very same rules that ESPN had mercilessly imposed on other broadcast entities to deny ESPN access to the tracks.

Caught in the middle was Massaro. He was truly the last man standing who was able to continue to provide interviews and updates from the races. Helipads, airport runways and even traffic lights served as his interview locations.

Monday, Massaro will lead perhaps the most powerful media ship in the NASCAR TV navy from the High Definition studios of ESPN2 in Bristol, CT. NASCAR is back on ESPN and Massaro has been justly rewarded.

Joining Massaro will be Ryan McGee, a senior writer from the ESPN.com staff. McGee spent a lot of time at the NASCAR Media Group in Charlotte, NC helping to create much of the TV content viewers enjoyed during SPEED's NASCAR heyday. He also helped out on a little project that won an Emmy Award. The movie was simply called "Dale."

McGee was the person who thought it might be a nice idea to find former NASCAR truck series driver Aaron Fike and get the truth about his drug use in relation to driving and racing under the influence of heroin.

The single story that resulted from McGee's efforts changed the sport forever. Suddenly, NASCAR VP Jim Hunter's words on drug testing for "reasonable suspicion" seemed empty. Click here for McGee's original story. The drivers suddenly wanted tougher standards, regular testing and a professional organization involved. They got all three.

Monday, McGee returns to NASCAR Now as a panelist with the sport in the middle of a mind-bending drug testing issue that seems to have no end. Who better to speak to the issue than the man who sparked the changes?

Nate Ryan is USA Today's NASCAR reporter. He is familiar to many fans as someone who is on various media outlets being interviewed frequently. If you don't know him, click here for a great story that may grab your attention about how reporters work their way up to a "national beat."

Ryan is also on Twitter, a service that has become tremendously popular with NASCAR fans. It allows him to communicate directly, in almost real time, with whoever would like to read his messages. It has proven to be a service that Ryan has mastered in terms of getting NASCAR information and links to fans. His direct approach and honest tone should be a welcome perspective to the NASCAR Now program.

The final member of this Monday line-up is a TDP favorite from the old Tradin' Paint show on SPEED. Associated Press reporter Jenna Fryer had some knock-down drag-out brawls with Kyle Petty that were amazing. She proved that she will listen, but will not be moved off her views just because someone says she is wrong.

Click here for one of Fryer's recent stories where she reviewed the issues on the table with Mayfield and then wrote in plain language the results. Fryer is an old-school reporter and the AP in front of her name makes that very clear. Agree or disagree, Fryer's weekly column makes sure readers know how she feels about an issue.

This line-up is going to make for a Monday to remember at 5PM ET on ESPN2. The program will re-air at 9PM PT and segments will certainly be seen on the ESPN.com website. But, what role can TDP readers play in this program?

Since we are lucky enough to have your comments reviewed by many NASCAR media folks, how about addressing some issues right now in advance of the Monday TV show.

How do you think the NASCAR media has done on reporting this story to date? What have they not told you about where this issue is concerned? What has been done well?

If you were Mike Massaro, what one question would you ask of these panelists that could help shed some light on issues that are still confusing?

The previous TDP post on Mayfield (click here) drew over 200 tremendous comments and showed the intelligence of the NASCAR fan base. This is another good opportunity to put some topics and questions out that this group can address on Monday.

To add your opinion or comment, just click on the comments button below. This is a family-oriented website, please keep that in mind when posting. Thanks once again for taking time out of your day to keep this NASCAR conversation going.

118 comments:

JD, we both wondered in the prior comments about the others who have been suspended. I'd like to hear their take.

Did they take their lumps because of the truth, or no money for an attorney?

I'm curious about Marty Smith not being on the panel. He did interviews with Jeremy.

I'm going to pay more attention to the repeat of NN @ 9:30 PDT. (That is, if it's on. The repeat wasn't on last night. That rant is for another TDP topic). Marty was on via phone. I don't remember all he said.

As a minor player in the non-NASCAR racing media some years ago, I have seen stories undergo tweaks based on external considerations: protection of track credentials, sponsor appeasement, personal relationships. Unless something on the order of national security is involved, the captive racing press understandably goes along to get along.

My initial opinion was that the racing press could not afford to get too involved with the Mayfield saga. Therefore, ESPN should be commended for stepping up on Mayfield and the drug testing issues. To date, ESPN's Mayfield coverage has been forthright and mostly objective. It will take the resources of a major media organization to sift the truth out of all the mud that has been tossed around.

Mayfield is claiming that NASCAR and Aegis Labs are trying to frame him. My question is about the alleged conspiracy: How would it be possible for NASCAR and Aegis to enlist all the people necessary for a conspiracy to function, and yet keep the conspiracy confidential. I am separating the possibility of a mistake from Mayfield's claim that NASCAR and Dr Black are deliberately skewing the test results.

Based on posts from other websites, it appears that a significant number of people believe that Mayfield has been set up by NASCAR and Aegis, two separate entities with their own unique staffs. I can understand Mayfield claiming that, but I simply do not understand how it could actually happen.

Although I certainly enjoy your opinions, this is not a site that is aimed at advancing issues not verified by the media.

As the creator of this blog, I have to be careful when we are talking about factual items that I do not have personal knowledge about or can verify through my own sources. Your comment contained several of those.

I hope you understand that the vast majority of what you said was outstanding and I hope you take a moment to repost focusing on how the media has covered this story and what you would like to see Massaro bring up as questions for the panel.

To really enlighten race fans they should have a doctor who specializes in addiction medicine to give some basic information about addiction. Not Mayfield himself but rather general information about the preconceived notions about addicts.

It would also be nice to have someone explain the basics of drug screening. Why it's so important to observe the person giving the sample, why time windows are so important and the chain of custody.

JDYou have your facts wrong in your story.When ESPN had rights to NASCAR prior to FOX, ESPN did not prohibit other nets from showing up at the tracks.TNN and ESPN crossed over all the time. It wasn't until FOX got involved that the animosity grew so large

I would beg to differ. At the time, I was the Executive Producer of First Auto Sport Television.

We produced the NASCAR content for the Prime Network shows like This Week in NASCAR and Primetime Motorsports.

NASCAR was not yet in charge of the TV rights. The former motorsports management of ESPN, none of whom remain with the company, were brutal in enforcing the ESPN copyright at the tracks.

Eli Gold was forced to use still pictures on TWIN and TNN was forced to use old file footage because of ESPN's direct threats of legal action.

Trust me, it was one of the most brutal times in NASCAR TV and many folks, including some at NASCAR, believed that ESPN got exactly what they deserved when the new contract was done without them.

My column reinforces that Massaro was the man in the middle and his determination to keep the NASCAR presence on ESPN has now been rewarded.

If you want any more info on the rights issues back then, just drop me an email. It is still fresh in my memory because it was me on the other end of the phone after ESPN threw my TV crews out of the track.

here's my problem in asking this panel "to cover" this situation: there's so many balls in the air that trying to catch a few and discuss them will inevitably leave the rest spinning without clarification and thereby add to the conspiracy theories: "well, they covered this one but left that one out so that must be another cover-up!"

for me, i want to see a solid, scientifically-based discussion about the testing process (NOT the collection process) and the differences between the two labs which have been identified: what can each test for? what are their controls, protocols, standards?

then, a scientific discussion about what meth is and isn't, how "street meth" differs chemically from OTC or prescription drugs that contain methamphetimines, how a lab CAN detect the difference.

i'd also like a science-based discussion about the status of "hair testing" vs a comprehensive test of a urine sample. aspects: what is hair testing? what can it test and not test? what is the timeframe for accurate results. compare/contrast with high-level urine testing.

what i DON'T want to see if a personality-driven discussion in any way. you know the stuff: "he doesn't look like a meth-head," "she's being paid by nascar," "they're trying to break the little guys," "france is no saint himself," "innocent until proven guilty," he said/he said moments: that stuff.

stick to the science and explain it in a way that answers the outrageous assertions and simplistic statements that have no basis in reality. if the media would focus on the science of the situation, i believe a whole lot of "stuff" would fal away and we'd be left with a clearer picture.

for me, the science is the key factor in all this and everything else is just human beings on BOTH sides just running their mouths. let the science talk for a change: it deserves to be heard and understood.

Other than Mike Massaro, it sounds like they rounded up every journalist from The National Enquirer. ESPN does nothing but feed off of filth, and what better story than to "burn down" a NASCAR driver. Remember, John, this is the same network that prides itself in employing Tony Kornheiser, who blasts NASCAR every chance he gets. Not to mention the fact that not too long ago, you "burned" the network down for the way they treated NASCAR like the ugly stepsister. Not getting personal, John, and certainly not taking sides on the Mayfield vs. NASCAR mess, but drugs + NASCAR + ESPN = National Enquirer type journalism. When I think of "Fair and Balanced", I don't think of ESPN....

It is my contention that it is possible that Ageis made a mistake when they tested Mayfield the first time, and then, because NASCAR immediately dumped the story into the news media, Aegis--which trades on its reputation--could not afford to admit the error.

This is, I think, why people are having such a hard time with the results of the "re-test"--at this point, having said everything that's been said in public, there is no way Aegis could return anything but a positive result. To do otherwise would destroy the company's reputation.

It is also way there is a need for a test by an independent third-party lab.

If Mayfield's guilty, then this won't be a problem. By stalling and refusing to do it, NASCAR as much as admits it knows there may be a problem with the original test.

@red- Agree. My point about the collection process is that is the start of the system. When people challenge a test their only real chance is to tackle the chain of custody. The chemistry once it has been unsealed is ironclad as long as proper protocol is followed.

Dianra Leslie-Pelecky would be perfect to describe the chemistry like she did on stockcarscience blog. I've heard her several times on Sirius Speedway with Dave Moody and she is fantastic.

I'd like to know if anyone tried to track down people who have known JM for the past ten years and ask them about drug use. Evernham has already said he never saw any signs. What about his former crew chiefs? Crew members? Would no one talk? (aside from his father's widow, who clearly has problems with him) I wonder why no one has mentioned a lie detector test. (not infallible, I know, but still. . .)I want to know if anyone asked the Nascar PTB about the BF (I think?) comment that there are positive test results "all the time." What the heck does that mean in real terms? If no questions were asked, why not?Thirdly, some of these reporters know these drivers and their crews well. Why haven't they asked their friends the hard questions? If they have, why haven't they reported the answers, even if it's "I'm not talking about that." Lastly, I'd like to know why Aegis objected to the labs JM's attorney wanted to use to test the "b" sample. Is this a marketing war in the drug testing business, and it's simply a collateral issue, or is there a question about the other lab's reliability? Methodology?

Lastly, I want to know more about JM's father and his relationship with his son, as well as his death. It came to me that JM began to spiral downward when his father died. Did anyone else notice this? Certainly, the suicide of one's father can have devastating effects. Also, will anyone discuss the hereditary aspects of the addictive personality? Does it exist? JM has said his father was a "bad alcoholic," and that could be a factor in his choice of another drug to feed his dependency issues.

It is my contention that it is possible that Ageis made a mistake when they tested Mayfield the first time, and then, because NASCAR immediately dumped the story into the news media, Aegis--which trades on its reputation--could not afford to admit the error.

According to court documents, Aegis has been testing for meth for 15 years. They've identified over 7,000 positive samples in that time. No false-positives in any of the more than 7,000 cases. None.

First of all, you think Aegis made a mistake, why? How would they make such a "mistake?" Do you think they were looking at aspirin molecules in his blood sample and the new trainee mixed them up with meth?

Second, you think Aegis would make a mistake and then direct it's sample collectors (of which there were several on scene), lab technicians, and other employees to engage in a criminal conspiracy and concoct false data in order to ruin a man's career?

Sorry, but the level of disbelief needed to go with your assertion is just too preposterous.

I am really tired of people saying that "Mayfield didn't look like a meth head" and "People around him didn't notice."

In my experience, the only kind of people who make these kinds of statements are people who don't use drugs and don't know anyone at all in their lives who has.

Half of Hollywood is drugged out of their minds -- yet they look beautiful and function fine. Half of the rock bands out there are drugged out of their minds -- yet they maintain grueling travel schedules and perform physically exhausting concerts while looking fine.

To me, when someone says something ignorant like "well, he doesn't look like a drug addict" or "how come no one around him knew he was a junkie"... it's kind of like when they arrest the murderer and all his neighbors say "i can't believe it, he just didn't seem like the type." Remember that guy who was arrested for murdering prostitutes on CraigsList? His own finacee swore up and down that he could never hurt a fly.

People have a tremendous capacity to hide things they don't want other people to know. The fact is that you can snort powdered meth for years and have no detrimental physical ailments that would be noticeable to others. You might be hurting your heart and blood pressure, you might be eating away your brain, but not every meth head loses his teeth, drops 70 ponuds, and looks like a homeless person. There are PLENTY of meth heads in white collar business who drees up nice every day, go to work, and no one around them knows that they have a terrible addiciton.

So let's stop all this looking at Mayfield or talking to his friends, as if either of those are evidence of innocence. They aren't.

Regardless of legal outcomes, Jeremy Mayfield is finished as a driver, at least in NASCAR. Right or wrong, guilty or not, it all makes no difference now.

What needs to come out of this debacle is a new and crystal clear drug policy from NASCAR. They still have the chance to write a clear, effective, and transparent policy that would be the best in sports. Now is the time to step up and do the thing right.

History tells me, quite sadly, NASCAR will retreat into even more secrecy and confusion and try to sell it to all parties as the right way of doing things. Equally as sad, I don't see any driver or owner standing up to them and pushing for what could obviously be better. Everyone knows where their bread is buttered and I guess I can't blame them.

So that leaves us......the fans AND the media to put the pressure on Brian France and company but I can't think of a single instance where this has worked on an issue this large in the past. Has it? OR is this going to follow the old scenario that only a death will force true change? That's pretty morbid but also historically true.

So I guess we wait...........I've been a fan and participant in racing for over 50 years and there are times that I truly hate this sport. This is one of those times.

I would have to agree with some of what Garry said. We all see every week the ESPN pit reporters looking to start drama every chance they get. There is no doubt that they have vendettas against certain sports, like NASCAR (coverage just plain sucks, and the coverage on other shows like SportsCenter, First Take, etc. are minimal). The only time NASCAR news appears on the bottomline is for Mayfield. Only recently have they been using the bottomline for other news, like Harvick looking for a job elsewhere, and RC's response.

However, their reporting on the Mayfield soap opera has been awesome. Marty Smith and Ryan McGee have been giving great information to all the fans on the entire situation, and their appearances on NN as well as other ESPN shows have been very impressive. I would have liked to see Marty on Monday's show, but Ryan on there is a great addition.

Also, I would have liked to have seen Ricky Craven appear. He still may "on the phone" or in an interview setting, but I'm talking about on the roundtable panel. He always gives great insight in everything he discusses, and the Mayfield situation is no different. He would bring a driver's perspective, and from someone who raced with Mayfield for years (years that his stepmother claims he used meth), his perspective on this would be very interesting.

I agree with red and bevo that it is very important that people be informed about the science involved in this issue. Except for Dr. Leslie-Pelecky's blog, the science has either been ignored or very poorly covered by the media.

What needs to come out of this debacle is a new and crystal clear drug policy from NASCAR. They still have the chance to write a clear, effective, and transparent policy that would be the best in sports.

I'm sorry, but what is not clear, effective and transparent about the policy?

It seems pretty clear: Don't do drugs. All the drivers signed onto the policy (literally) and they all seem to understand that you can't do meth.

Effective? NASCAR's policy seems pretty effective -- they have been catching drivers and crew members from all the series all year long.

Transparent? The only lack of transparency I have seen is that initially NASCAR didn't tell *fans* what the substance was. But they told Mayfield, so it is fully transparent.

If you are clean, you have nothing to worry about with the NASCAR policy. If you are a user, things like providing a list only make it easier for you to keep using.

So what are the *major* changes you would make to NASCAR's policy? I keep hearing it needs changes, but nobody has any except for mentioning this list, as if that makes any difference at all.

I do wish they would have some technical people on to answer the methodology/science/procedures of drug testing.

There should be background info on Aegis. Many of the people in disbelief are not just taking the "NASCAR is evil" position (which no one could win a debate on. No one will ever convince those folks of anything else.) But, an objective report on Aegis/other labs would hopefully clear up some of the confusion. Note I say "some". As sure as I'm typing this, someone will say, no matter who they get, they were paid off by NASCAR. Nevertheless, I would like to see the science explained in layman terms and walk through procedure from when a driver gets the call to test through the notification process when some one fails.

Also, how about someone clearing up the "doesn't look like a meth head" comments. Certainly you could find drug rehab professionals as well as former addicts tell their stories of the lies, deceit and cover up of many drug users that "don't look like it".

I am also concerned you will get "opinion" instead of facts vs myth type reporting.

Lets hope they answer more questions than they raise. My head is already hurting over this whole thing.

NN needs to have some drug rehab professionals on to dispel the beliefs that people "look" like drug addicts. How about some one who has gone through rehab and turned their life around who can tell how they hid their addiction.

Also...to NN folks...going back to procedural issues, can't a lab provide you with a sample bottle (empty of course..LOL) showing barcode with NO name.

I know it's an off-week, but I bet they will go through Mayfield up and down in the first segment, and then when they get back from commercial, they'll go to analyzing the Chase contenders, reviewing the season, etc.

The reason the COLLECTION is also a key is because if there is no witness to it, one can substitute another persons urine VERY easily. A small pouch held against the body in a very thin plastic bag for instance. And a tube that sounds like urine hitting the cup from outside a stall door.

Thus the 15 other tests JM claims were NOT positive, very well may be. But was it his urine that was tested?

Some places 20 years ago even used special stall doors where the only obstruction is from about waist level to mid thigh level for average heights. Thus if somebody is fiddling with a pouch of urine against the body, the body language would be caught by the observer in the room.

i.e. unbuttoning a shirt in order to void one's bladder is not usually necessary. Then the Whizzanator was invented and ruined that partial door view.

Some people do have shy bladder (Paruresis, the milder kind, not the severe version) but still need to be tested.

Gotta be aware of sneaks. :)

At the doctor's office where I worked, women would run water all the time in order to be able to give us a sample (water masked the sound and helps some to go) And this was just for bladder/kidney infection checks! You never know about the human psyche.

JD - what I'd dearly loved to see covered is the upper middle to high end addict angle.Preferably by a professional who has dealt or does deal with it. What most of us think of is the down & out hard core street addict. What are the signs of addiction way up there? I'm amazed by everyone saying "he doesn't look like" - well neither did my sister! Nice home & job till it all fell in, with a traffic stop, then the search, and all that followed.

Also might I add my vote for the testing process & Not the Collection process.

I could care less about friends from his past telling me how great/awful he is/was.

And could we leave the step mom out of it too?No distractions or red herrings just info, actually facts would be great.

Thank you for being respectful in the manner that you removed my initial post. Of course, since this is my first time commenting on this blog, there are going to be kinks in my arguments, so I'd like to thank you for slowing me down tor review my argument (Which I shall now present a revised version of)

I feel that ESPN, while they have covered the story quite thoroughly and down to the point, along with throwing new tidbits of information out into the equation, I can't help but feel (And this is coming from a Mayfield 'homer') that there is a slight tinge of pro-NASCAR bias in their coverage. Watching the beginning of Nationwide Series Happy Hour at Daytona awhile back, the way they were talking about Mayfield's injunction would have made you think that Billy the Kid was running for ROTY.

Obviously, since ESPN has a contract with NASCAR for a ton of money (And clauses along with that, I should think), I don't think it's really realistic to expect the question of ''Is NASCAR really wrong?'' to be thrown straight out into the open, but I think that ESPN could make their coverage truly pristine if they interviewed people from the Mayfield camp, namely John Buric, or even Shana Mayfield (Excerpts from Mayfield's phone interview were a step in the right direction). As of right now, it looks like most of the written media have resigned to the idea that ''Mayfield abused drugs and that's the end of that'', so at this point, it's nessecary for ESPN to keep pressing the story and getting the latest on what's going on to NASCAR fans, whether it be through written or visual media.

As it stands, though, Jeremy Mayfield wields the power to change the structure of the sport dramatically, and I should believe based on his recent comments and other things that I have read that he has a lot of dirt on the sanctioning body, particularly Brian France. If these things come to light, I think that all television networks that cover NASCAR, let alone ESPN, won't be allowed to sit on it. Mike Massaro and Nicole Manske have proven themselves to be professional and versatile in terms of their coverage, and I believe that this will be pivotal as things progress.

Just as Formula 1 teams successfully managed to get Max Mosley to abdicate his throne over at the FIA, Jeremy Mayfield stands to usurp the current power structure of NASCAR, and thorough coverage with no punches pulled will be pivotal for all networks involved. And, like their coverage come raceday or not, ESPN has shown that they are the most apt to cover this story.

Jeremy Mayfield wields the power to change the structure of the sport dramatically, and I should believe based on his recent comments and other things that I have read that he has a lot of dirt on the sanctioning body, particularly Brian France.

Who cares if Brian France does drugs? He doesn't drive a racecar at 190mph in front of fans. If he and Mayfield want to get wasted, fine - just stay off the track.

As of right now, it looks like most of the written media have resigned to the idea that ''Mayfield abused drugs and that's the end of that'

You have to understand - we are more than two months into this story and not only has no evidence emerged to suggest that the testing is flawed, but if anything more evidence has come out to back up the findings of the original test. I think any reporter would love to break news with evidence showing NASCAR is at fault. But so far there is none. Not one source has offered up either motive or evidence that Aegis committed a multi-person criminal conspiracy. Get real.

Just as Formula 1 teams successfully managed to get Max Mosley to abdicate his throne over at the FIA, Jeremy Mayfield stands to usurp the current power structure of NASCAR

Hahahahaha. Wake up!

Brian France hired the biggest and best lab in the country to test his drivers and they caught one who was a meth addict.

What would you say Jeremy should do next? Maybe he should go into his garage and cook up another big batch of Sudafed into meth and dream about how one day he will be the commissioner of NASCAR and the France family will sign over their personal holdings because a proven junkie had Marty Smith's cel phone number.

You are so right about this - once Mayfield goes into court and lays out some "dirt" on Brian France the court will automatically invalidate his multiple positive meth tests.

just to clarify why i, personally, am no longer concerned about the procedures used for collection of the urine samples in this case. i understand the need to verify that the individual providing the sample is doing just that: providing an sample of his urine in front of a specialist.

but since mayfield did exactly that in his own home on 7/6/09 and that A sample came back positive for meth, i am no longer worried about the chain of custody or procedures for the first sample, taken at the track. they have been rendered moot for me since the lresults of the ater test was revealed.

the 7/6 home collection addressed the issues raised in the emergency injunction and the tests still came back positive. so, even if the first collection was flawed, the 7/6 one was not and the results were the same. mayfield's attorney has not raised any concerns about the collection method used at mayfield's home, except to object that his client was "humiliated." so, we have to assume that buric or diehl have no problem with that collection procedure -- and the A sample from that has tested positive for meth.

so, if they're not contesting the collection procedure in that situation and it came back positive for meth, then what's left? right: go after the lab and imply they mishandled the sample or they're part of the greater conspiracy to get rid of mayfield or they're incompetent or . . . whatever.

as for tracy's question as to why aegis objected to using labcorp (mayfield's lawyer's choice of lab) for testing: labcorp does not have the ability to do the tests to the same level of sophistication as aegis. buric said that himself, when he claimed that labcorp cleared mayfield, using the third 7/6/09 urine sample provided by mayfield that day, one that was taken within an hour of nascar's subsequently positive sample.

(of course, he also said that the testing was continuing, to see if labcorp could meet aegis' protocols. so how, exactly, does it make that a negative test if labcorp can't meet the same protocol? hmmmm.)

anyway! just wanted to clarify why the collection means has become immaterial to me subsequent to the 7/6 collection at mayfield's home, a collection whose A sample has tested positive for meth. that B sample is still secure, waiting for someone to decide what agency gets to test it.

For Mayfield to be telling the truth, he would have had to have taken Claritin-D on the Monday he was taken. After all, he says his original positive was a false reading of the combination of Claritin-D and Adderall.

I am sorry if I misled you to believe that the entire hour will be about Mayfield. There is certainly going to be a review of this issue, but you are correct that the remainder of the show will be other various NASCAR topics.

Anon 2:13PM,

If and when Mayfield agrees to an interview, TDP will update immediately. Right now, no info on that topic.

@red- Mayfield's latest red herring (yesterday) is that NASCAR spiked his urine sample on the latest test. I realize that no matter what some folks will never believe that Mayfield is an addict. I just think it would be a service to use this incident to educate people about drug abuse.

Ditto Red and West Coast Diane. Would also like to know a little more detail on HOW Nascar developed their drug policy and why it is the way it is. Some think that BF just pulled it out of the air while I think they actually put some thought into it and there is a really good reason for no list.

I want just to echo please explain why "doesn't look like a Meth Head" is not a correct assumption because many don't look like they are using. Perhaps a little about how those with a problem try to get a diagnosis of ADD to get legal RX for what they have been using illegally

His interview with wsoctv is creepy. If you watch the unedited footage on the website, he keeps coming back at the reporter.

Like, the reporter says "Why would NASCAR single you out?" and Mayfield shoots back "Why do you think they would?" The reporter asks "Have you ever driven in a race under the influence?" and Mayfield asks him "No, have you?" (which makes no sense). Every question he turns right back into a question to the reporter.

Negative tests don't mean anything. Maybe he gets high every weekend and tested every Wednesday. I mean, really. I bet most druggies could pass a test if they got to pick when and where it happened (and then never released the results).

One thing the NASCAR program has accomplished is that the reason the 6 or 7 crewmembers suspended earlier this year is known only to the suspendee, Aegis, and maybe NASCAR. Whether they were suspended for taking too much Benadryl, having smoked marijuana, or used cocaine, that is not known to their friends or to law enforcement unless the suspendee has told them - which is not the "transparency" that some in the media seem to want. Public disclosure of the offending substance serves no one but the media.

Why should it matter? The CEO of one of the nation's largest sports should not be doing, or have done at any point, mind-altering or illicit substances. Let's suppose for a second you worked in an office building: You wouldn't walk into your meetings totally coked up, would you? Do you think your boss would let that slide?

The sad part is that Brian France doesn't have to answer to anyone the way he runs things. Now, it's entirely different - He has the law to answer to.

Also, regarding Mayfield's interview and his behavior during it, I think we should consider Mayfield's background and current mindset - Remember, his father was an alcoholic and his stepmother hates him, so I really shouldn't think that he'd be extraordinarily bright (Sorry), and he's basically got a whole corporation out for his blood. At that point, I think something would definitely seem a little off as far as his behavior goes, but it's definitely not drug related - It's just him being defensive in his argument.

@Dot--the only one who possibly would have access to an attorney would be Shane Hmiel, his Daddy has money and connections. So if he wanted to feign innocence he would probably be the only one with the resources. IIRC he was the first to get a second chance which led the conspiracy theories of his Daddy's connections getting him that.

@Tracy--yes that still bothers me, well everything BF says bothers me. What do they mean about people turning up "positive" all the time. But apparently those are OK because of some mysterious list that no one knows about. I'd also like to hear from character witnesses for Germy. I chatted with Mr. Beaver and he's been around Germy and Shana and has never observed anything to indicate drug activity. And of these alleged "30 or so times" where are the other "eyewitnesses" to these. If he's allegedly doing it at a race shop there had to be other people seeing it as well.

For me at least, the reason not having a published list is because of what BF said about people testing positive but being OK. What is OK to be positive for and what isn't? Which is why people are pointing to NA$CAR having it out for Germy.

Why should it matter? The CEO of one of the nation's largest sports should not be doing, or have done at any point, mind-altering or illicit substances. Let's suppose for a second you worked in an office building: You wouldn't walk into your meetings totally coked up, would you? Do you think your boss would let that slide?

The issue is relevance, friend. It matters in a general sense, but it does not matter one bit to this case. What I am saying here is that it doesn't matter if BF goes to church every day and prays until sunset or if he goes to crack houses every day and hangs out in strip clubs. None of that matters to whether or not Mayfield tested positive for meth. That's especially the case since NASCAR didn't do the test, Aegis did the test and a second lab confirmed the result with their own test.

If one of Mayfield's lawyers were dumb enough to try and bring up any alleged drug use by NASCAR officials in court, it would go something like this: Opposing counsel would stand up and say two words: "Objection, relevance." And the judge would say a half-second later "Sustained."

Your apologies for Mayfield are understandable, but as the facts start to build up, the lengths you must stretch the story to fit start to get a little unbelievable.

I am beginning to wonder if the NASCAR Now segment on Mayfield wont be very very short. I don't forsee anyone on that panel defending him. I wouldn't even be surprised if Fryer outright mocked some of the alibis. Between now and Monday, Mayfield is bound to say some more ridiculous things into a microphone or camera, so they can at least have fun with that. But aside from the few hangers on left who will never believe NASCAR no matter what, this is pretty much a shut case now.

I am biased since I am a fan of Ryan McGee and Marty Smith and I check the ESPN site at least a couple of times each week to see what they have written, and often David Newton now. I would have to give Ryan an A, David a B+, and Marty a C or maybe C+. The most professional article I have seen on the JM situation was Ryan's, and I was fascinated to see that he even addressed the issue of whether or not the "leaks" he got about the results of JM's test involved anyone breaching the court gag order.

I would like to ask 2 questions-

1. Why apparently did no one in the media ask B. France at his last news conference to explain in some detail how the NASCAR drug program was developed and what resources and consultants, if any, were used in arriving at the program?

2. Except for 1 article by David N. mentioning that the NFL has its A and B samples tested by the same lab, why hasn't the media (and ESPN in particular) provided a thorough comparison of the NASCAR testing program to that of the IRL, F1, or even the NFL or MLB?

With limited exceptions, it seems to me that the NASCAR media has a problem with really digging in and trying to understand and report on big, new issues facing the sport - just like its handling of the Toyota menace 2 years ago that was going to overwhelm the rest of NASCAR, despite Toyota's then having spent well over $1 billion in F1 without any wins.

In many instances the NASCAR media reminds me of a good plantiff's attorney - don't let the facts interfere with a story that might sell.

Although all of this started with Jeremy Mayfield, as far as our sport is concerned, it really isn't about him anymore. He will never race in Nascar again no matter what happens in court. It's up to Jeremy and his legal council to clear his name, unfortunately, he'll never regain his reputation. Yes, it ultimately effects NASCAR, but unless Jeremy somehow ends up owning NASCAR, nothing changes when the green flag flies. Jeremy will have his opportunity to supply his evidence at trial. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what the public thinks. It's in the hands of the legal system.

Anyways, back to the topic. IMO, it's about the NASCAR's Substance Abuse Policy. How was it put together? Who was involved? Who did they consult with? Why did they choose Aegis? Who made the final decision? Are they considering or made any changes been made since this incident? (quotes from different drivers stating that the collection process has changed, I don't recall other reporting on this). How does their policy compare to the other racing series? Brian France stated in an interview that they have had alot of positives, what substances were found and how were these resolved?

As far as the teams/drivers are concerned: Did they question or investigate the policy? Did they consult with legal council? Did they just trust NASCAR to look out for their best interest?

In regards to Aegis and Dr. Black: What tests/processes are used? I guess I understand the reason for no "list", but how are the tolerances determined? Do they take into consideration things like size, weight, height, age of the person supplying the specimen? When a positive is determined, do they obtain any information from their personal physician other than verification of prescriptions? I read that Dr. Black has had a 18 year relationship with NASCAR, it what compact?

Sorry JD! More than can be discussed on NASCAR Now, but these are some of the questions I have.

In my opinion, I don't think it really matters what other sports do. In MLB, the emphasis lately has been on PED's. NFL the same, but along with NBA, street drugs are a smaller problem to them evident by the fact that they don't suspended until the 3rd stike. It would appear NASCAR asked Aegis to implement a no tolerance policy. Done. DOn't do any drugs, and there won't be a problem. I really dont think it matters if Bill France knows anything about implemeting a program, he hired an accredited lab to that for him. In my opinion.

GreenMeansGo - super questions. If the NASCAR program is so clearly flawed, wonder why the media did not ask them last fall when the new program was announced? Sure might have avoided some of the current situation.

You do realize that this is the same organization that was revealed to have faked Tim Richmond's drug test, right?

They were out to destroy Richmond (Who was already a dying man) then, and they want Mayfield's career for their trophy room as well (Hell, they've probably already polished a space for it). They. do. not. play. fair.

''The issue is relevance, friend. It matters in a general sense, but it does not matter one bit to this case''

It is relevant in terms of, if there is strong enough evidence to suggest so, whether or not Brian France is really fit to administer a drug-testing program. If there has truly been past or recurring abuse on his part, there is no way that can be overlooked in terms of deterring guilt.

@Steven- NASCAR doesn't handle the specimen, The lab company does. That's why I said the show ought to explain the collection process. The only identification is a bar code. The sample doesn't say Jeremy Mayfield on it. That's what is known as chain of custody - it is set up that way to prevent tampering.

These are not cheap little test you pick up at the drug store to check your kids. It is a very sophisticated process with redundancies to prevent any problems.

But has Nascar really substantiated the 2nd positive test. It's only the media that is saying it. All I read was that his step-mother signed an affidavit that's all that was found out in 10 days since the drug test. If JM was a user he wouldn't look and act like he does. Just listen to Ray Evernham & Mark Martin's comments about it too. I feel really sorry for Jeremy I don't feel he should be treated like this.

@steven: some points about the non-connection between the tim richmond case and the current mayfield case.

1. richmond had AIDS, nascar knew it and, like most organizations and people at the time, was scared to death of it. we cannot overlay our current feelings or understandings of HIV/AIDS on to the times of the richmond case: as a society, we have progressed from those days. i would also argue that nascar did not set out to "destroy" richmond, altho' that was most certainly the result. they just wanted him gone, out of the sport, b/c they were ignorant and afraid and they took advantage of the state of drug testing at the time to accomplish that. the substance for which richmond tested positive would produce a positive now BUT he would have been able to explain it and not be suspended.

2. the executives leading nascar now are not the same men and women who led it then. to extrapolate that the current leadership would do what that leadership group did then is illogical. no matter what one thinks of brian france, he is neither his father nor his grandfather and, as he has consistently demonstrated, he doesn't lead nascar the way they did, either.

3. you state "they want Mayfield's career for their trophy room as well . . ." but, like so many others, you offer no reason why. this continues to be stated across the web without any explanation, let alone evidence. i simply cannot believe jeremy mayfield was (a.) any sort of annoyance to nascar (b.) a threat to nascar in any way or (c.) someone who has historically irritated nascar (not his owners, nascar. evernham is being quite charitable of late, considering the history between them and penske ain't talking at all.) now? you bet. but at the time of the random drug test? no.

4. it was a RANDOM screening that caught mayfield the first time. the personnel to be screened are chosen by a computer-generated schedule. no one, not nascar officials, not lab personnel, not the drivers or support personnel know when the schedule will land on a particular individual.

5. and now mayfield is claiming nascar "spiked" his urine sample? does he know that nascar never had possession of his latest sample? or is he lumping aegis in with nascar? i'm just not willing to suspend my belief THAT much.

6. personal opinion here: mayfield just isn't so important that aegis labs and nascar would go to these lengths to "destroy" his career. he just isn't. if anything, his attempt to build another team was good for the sport.

nascar makes some miserable decisions and horrible mistakes but, for me? this just isn't one of them. this driver has tested at least twice for meth that is chemically different from that which occurs in OTC or prescription drugs. he doesn't belong in the seat at this time -- if ever again.

It's really ignorant to say that Jeremy doesn't "look" like someone one uses meth. Not every meth user looks like the stereotyped emaciated and toothless people you see on TV and in photos. Especially users that have the money and means to take care of themselves. Prime example - actor Tom Sizemore who has been arrested in possession of meth more than once and has struggled with it for years.

Same thing for people not noticing his use. Addicts are some of the best liars/actors there are.

anon@7:53: once again: the methamphetamine in ritalin is NOT chemically the same meth as that for which mayfield has tested positive. the testing that aegis has done is capable of distinguishing between the methamphetamine in OTCs and prescription drugs and the meth that is illegal.

vicky: not certain what you mean when you ask "But has Nascar really substantiated the 2nd positive test." the answer is yes: the media is reporting that nascar has stated that mayfield's supervised collection and subsequent test from 7/6/09 has tested positive for the same banned and illegal substance as the richmond A (and B) samples.

mother in law is a silly diversion and quite irrelevant. i'm annoyed by that whole hot mess.

as for mayfield's looks and people's opinions: don't go there. too many of us have been fooled and felt like idiots for not picking it up. no two addicts look or act the same and only experience with the addictive personality can help you distinguish some of the common characteristics. that being said: i'm looking at the science. and as one poster has stated so eloquently: the science wasn't wrong.

By A.J. Perez, USA TODAYNASCAR driver Jeremy Mayfield tested positive for methamphetamine for the second time and lawyers for the racing series argued the driver should have his ban reinstated, according to a motion filed in federal court Wednesday.

The urine sample collected on July 6 "conclusively" showed that Mayfield had again used the addictive street drug, NASCAR's lawyers wrote in the filing that urges a U.S. District Court judge in Charlotte to reconsider the temporary restraining order that lifted the 40-year-old driver's suspension

I just watched the TV interview from his truck that happened a couple days ago. He was aked "Why would 2 tests come back positive?" He repled, "Why would 15 come back negative?" So yeah, it's been addressed. I'm no lawyer, so, if he's getting tested "every 2 to three days" since the first positive test and they're all negative, would it take his lawyers this long to put a case together to get him out of this mess?

I'm not the sharpest tack in the box at times but I do not understand why so many are having such a difficult understanding that if you have a prescription for a certain drug, you turn that in to Aegis Labs. When you are tested you will show positive for what ever that drug is. The lab tech will look at the prescription for the dosage prescribed and if you are taking it as prescribed you will be OK. Just as once JM told Dr Black about the Adderal, faxed the prescription, and told them about the Claritin D they isolated those substances in the amount that was prescribed and there was still a third substance, and the levels way exceed what should have been for that prescription. These tests can not only break down every substance but tell you the quantities in your system. You can have a prescription for a drug but if you take it more than your Dr prescribes, that's considered abusing it.

As far as who how and why set this system up, why is that really relevant if it's legal?But way back before this mess started I read about the new drug policy and I'm sure I read that NASCAR hired Aegis to set up and administer a no tolerance drug abuse plan. That is what they do, they are experts in the field, I was told the other day that was dumb NASCAR needed to talk with other sports and get ideas how they did it. I didn't bother explaining that I doubted very much any of them set their systems up, because unless you were well versed in the laws governing drug testing and understood toxicology you wouldn't have a clue so all of them hired professional drug testing labs to set up and manage their drug testing policy. If Aegis didn't set them up one of the few other highly accredited labs did and are managing them. An organization, ANY organization would be absolute fools to attempt to organize and manage their own drug testing program which is exactly what many here believe NASCAR does. They do not, they are hands off.If a lab can not get a good breakdown of every substance in your system, and can not detect quantities of each substance in your system how can they determine if you're abusing? So if a non accredited lab can only test for basics and they say you have a prescription for a certain substance, how can they give a 100% negative test if they can't tell the quantities to know if you're abusing? Wasn't Jeremy that accused Aegis of not following federal guidelines in testing practices? Yet he's crying because he's not allowed to use these tests by non accredited labs. I'd like to see him called on his "16" tests, show me receipts for the testing or atleast logs from the labs to prove it. I'm sure if he makes that claim in court, he will be called on it.

Vickey,It is in the court filing that the "A" sample test came back positive and contrary to Jeremy's claims are trying to get JM and his lawyer to give them the name of a Federally accredited drug lab that the sealed "B" sample can be sent to for independent testing.

I'm no lawyer, so, if he's getting tested "every 2 to three days" since the first positive test and they're all negative, would it take his lawyers this long to put a case together to get him out of this mess?

Because those tests are meaningless. You cannot let a drug user (if he is one) select the times and dates he will be tested, or even let him know in advance when he will be tested. Certain compounds metabolize very quickly and can be out of your system fast. The only way to test a suspected drug addict is randomly, when they cannot prepare for it.

Also, Aegis has entered sworn statements into the record with the court that the labs Mayfield has selected are not capable of testing for all three of the substances found in his system - only two of them. Therefore, they cannot possibly be considered "more reliable" especially since Mayfield alone selected when they were done.

If NASCAR told Mayfield they would test him every Friday at Noon, he could easily beat it. The only way to catch an addict is random testing -- which may explain why it took Mayfield more than 8 hours to find a lab he was within 5 miles of. Yeah, right. He was probably shocked at the timing of the random test, then avoided being tested as long as he could. When he finally realized he had no choice but to take the test, he drank excessive water in an effort to dilute the findings and defeat the test (please read the court documents).

The world has changed a great deal since the days of Tim Richmond - but as I recall other players in effect forced Magic Johnson out of the NBA out of fear of HIV. Being old enough to recall them, a month or so ago I asked my haircutter whether he ever gives hot shaves - and he responded that no, he and every haircutter he knows quit years and years ago when AIDS concern was at its height.

I was being sarcastic as far in thinking that he has any chance of winning any civil case. At this point I think he's just dragging it on to save a little face. He can say whatever he likes, but it would take a full on admission of wrong doing from NASCAR for me personally to think he's not taken meth.

I brought up the collection process. I personally think it isn't an issue either. I brought it up because a number of posters have made comments suggesting to me they don't understand it is done anonymously and there are strict procedures.

@ Steve said:

"Let's suppose for a second you worked in an office building: You wouldn't walk into your meetings totally coked up, would you? Do you think your boss would let that slide"?

Well, no I wouldn't and didn't. But my bosses did...executives no less, so they couldn't fire themselves. This was is the crazy days of Silicon Valley. At management offsite meetings they would smoke pot, do coke. Used to have beer busts on Fridays in the cafeteria (ours was nicer than most restaurants) and folks would be in the bathroom doing whatever. I never understood it, but it happened in a lot of companies in the 80's/90's. Sad but true.

Has Jeremy quit taking adderal all together?According to a PDF of 1 of his drug tests from LabCorp on the TV websitehas absolutely nothing in his system.Maybe they better start checking DNA in his urine, cause it is so easy and so possible to use someone elses as has been discussed here several times.

Thanks for the info Eaglesoars.I used to work for a small sized construction company. Every 6 months or so they'd call us about 9:00 or 10:00 in the morning, asking us to come into the office for a test that afternoon. We'd go into the restroom, alone, and fill the cup. They'd gather the samples, and take them to a lab a few miles away. Worked there 10 years, no one ever failed.

Indeed unless they have DNA from Jeremy how do they know the male urine came from his body? Thus I want to KNOW how they get the sample. It's critical.

I used to hear of employees asking to borrow urine from others when they went into the bathroom in the early days of the baseball drug testing. In plants, some guys I was neighbors with in a steel plant heard similar stories many years ago.

Thus all the scientific breakdown of drug specificities is wasted if you are NOT sure where sample xyz came from.

So JM saying 15 tests were negative? Great Jeremy, who can PROVE those were all your samples?

Sadly, with contraptions you can buy in headshops or from internet, makes cheating easier with your own pre-stored urine or somebody else's.

I wonder if this is what JM was referring to:Mayfield began the season blogging for the Las Vegas Review. However, the blog was later taken over by his publicist before his wife, Shana, took the reins.On May 15, 2009, a user operating under Lisa Mayfield’s name left a comment on an April 3 post by Mayfield’s wife saying, “I wish NASCAR would test your hair or even your water bottle. I will be testifying for NASCAR. Don’t forget I know all your sources too.”

Bezo said: "The sample doesn't say Jeremy Mayfield on it. That's what is known as chain of custody - it is set up that way to prevent tampering."

Actually, chain of custody has nothing to do with the lack of name on the sample. It means, simply, that the evidence is never out of the hands of persons who will vouch for its integrity from the time it is received until its transmittal to the court or wherever it is intended to go. When it's sealed and stamped, the seal isn't broken until an order is received to do so, and even then, it's followed and logged every minute.

Sorry to get lawyerly on you. Chain of custody is very important in criminal cases and lack of the same can result in an overturned conviction, if one is achieved originally.

My verification word is "socaloge" which reminds me of Southern California (SoCal) loge, or logos, or words. How fitting. Like Valley-speak. Mayfield's verbal dancing is worthy of a Valley girl in her heydey.

I just want him to get help. Now. Before it's too late, if it isn't already.

@steven: once again, it'stime to bring the facts back into the discussion:

1. claritin was "protect(ed)" not because it is a sponsor of edwards' but because it has nothing to do with mayfield's positive test. if/when you read thru the counter-filing of nascar, you will read the aegis lab report. that report makes very clear that the form of meth for which mayfield has been busted is NOT, i repeat, is NOT the same form of methamphetamine that is found in claritin-d. the two substances are chemically different.

aegis identified 3 substances in the urine samples from mayfield: one that indicates the presence of adderall, one that indicates the presence of claritin-d and one that is neither of those and bears the chemical signature that identifies it as meth.

2. i don't see nascar as engaging in "Typical smug NASCAR-lawyer talk." what i read is a corporation keeping it's mouth shut and directing folks to the documents which have been filed on their behalf. (mayfield should consider that option as t's beginning to appear that even his lawyers can't control his comments.) i strongly suggest that you take the time to read thru these documents as they are very detailed and extremely understandable to the layman and can answer most of the questions that are out there.

3. as i have said before: mayfield's step-mother issue/comments are the shiny object that is attracting attention but, ultimately, has nothing to do with the case. the case against mayfield is built on scientific evidence, not personality.

i cannot urge you, personally, strongly enough to read the court documents in this case. i clearly read your anger toward nascar but you're reaching conclusions that simply are not supported by the facts. assumptions and suppositions may be fun but the facts and the science are what will determine the outcome of this case and it's not looking to me as if mayfield had either on his side right now.

@karen: according to the 7/15 court papers filed by nascar, the sample tested positive for methamphetamine at 4380 ng/mL by GC/MS testing and the methamphetamine present was more than 99% d-meth. (folks should see stockcarscience.com for an explanation of the difference between l-meth and d-meth.)

it also states that at 838 ng/mL, the amphetamine present may be due to the presence of adderall: "approximately 13% of the 838 ng/mL of the amphetamine measured is due to l-amphetamine which may be present due to adderall." the approxminately 86% remaining "is due to d-amphetamine, which would be a metabolite of d-methamphetamine and some of the d-methamphetamine may be due to the use of adderall."

so, short version: just as some of us have been saying all along, aegis clearly distinguishes between the methamphetamine present b/c of adderall use and that meth present b/c of illegal drug use.

by the way, the testing results also indicate an absence of pseudoephedrine, which would indicate no use of the infamous claritin-d.

gotta love the difference between even this small part of the aegis test reporting and the labcorp result sheet, huh?

I was referring to the negative result on the test results from LabCorp that Mayfield says proves he's not using meth. According to that report, and I use the term loosely, Mayfield tested negative for both amphetamines and methamphetamines. That's impossible if he's still taking Adderall. Adderall's is nothing but amphetimines, in both the "d" and "l" forms. Adderall contains no meth.

@karen: no problem. i just enjoy quoting the science in all this. the entire filing is just amazing: all sorts of affadavits, covering the collection process, with statements from 4 or 5 people and then the actual test results from aegis. heck, they even have photocopies of the custody forms.

as for that "report" from labcorp: really? really? that's it? that's the best they can produce to demonstrate that mayfield is innocent? and people wonder why nascar and aegis don't want to turn the B sample over to them?

Did anyone see the filing from Nascar. Some people had discussed wanting to know about the testing procedures used by the lab. It kind of explains how they do it, and how the specifically set out to avoid false positives.

Check out pgs 11 and 12 of the 47 pdf pages.

http://i.usatoday.net/sports/motor/nascar/s090715_mayfield_filing.pdf

I find it fun to read these things.

The one thing that bothers me the most is that Jeremy's lawyers seem to not care that he's hurting himself by talking. Where have they been all week?

@patti: thanks for posting the link to the court documents: i'd received them a few days ago and have been returning to them repeatedly for solid information. folks could get a whole lot of their questions answered if they'd take a few minutes and read thru the documents, especially the aegis results report. a cursory comparison between that and the labcorp "report" would, i hope, eliminate the question as to why nascar doesn't want the B sample from 7/6 tested at labcorp.

an educated fan base is a positive moment for nascar. working from assumptions, suppositions, rumors and personalities does no one any good -- not mayfield and not nascar. i'm discounting the "black helicopter" theorists in all this but for the rational fan, having information is essential if one is looking to understand and to form one's own opinion.

BUT it seems to me that the hard information in this case (as with others) is coming FROM the fans and is not being provided TO the fans by the nascar media. for example, one writer states that mayfield has tested for amphetamine, which is correct to a point (b/c adderall is an amphetamine) but he curiously doesn't address the bigger issue of d-meth. that's either sloppy reporting or a deliberate attempt to defend mayfield by ignoring the science of the story. and that's but one, single example.

altho' TDP is a nascar media blog, it seems to me that the planeteers seem to be acting AS the reporters in this instance rather than merely commenting on what's been written. not an all together bad thing, mind you, but it just seems that something has slid sideways here!

Ryan - I didn't know you ran Daily Planet!!! Seriously though, Ryan McGhee to me has always been one of the least enjoyable members of the NASCAR media. He comes across as full of himself. Objectively speaking, his stories are usually repetitive and almost always too sensational My two cents.

Well, I am really looking forward to NASCAR Now tonight, and I don't usually say that.

I always love the off-week roundtables because the #1 thing lacking on all the NASCAR shows is discussion. Too often they have to jam through the highlights or cover so much ground that the "discussion" is limited to everyone taking their turn at nailing a 10-second soundbyte. Last week a couple times when Boris Said and RIcky Craven tried to interact, they were cut off.

I expect a good deal of discussion. Jenna Fryer isn't afraid to interrupt (bless her), and Massaro always nails the preparation and perhaps likes to engage more than Bestwick.

I actually think that the Mayfield discussion, for all the talk of conening a drug summit, will be pretty mild. I don't expect much disagreement, and I'm really just interested to see if the panelists are as up on the details of this story as the commentators of this blog -- who do 10x the legwork/research of Marty "Hold the Microphone" Smith.

Here is another thing I am interested in seeing -- when they get to the discussion on the season, I expect there will be a lot of cracking on Kyle Busch because he's running bad and looks least likely to hold onto his Chase position. But I hope they dig into Dale Jr a bit, too. I've always felt NASCAR Now treated Junior with kid gloves. Well, he's well into the crew chief change and not running any better. I hope we get some candid stuff here.

I'm going to cook up the fattest, juiciest burger you've ever seen on my grill and enjoy it during NASCAR Now. I hope the show meets expectations set by myself (and this blog).